The Analysis of Disease States: Other Kinds Of Cancer

Description

The Analysis of Disease States: Other Kinds Of Cancer

There seem to be many other kinds of cancer, at least if
you believe the medical doctors. They divide up cancers and their treatments by their
location in the body and by the type of cancer cells present. I do not see it that
way. To me, a cancer is a cancer is a cancer, and there is only one kind: it is an
immune system collapse, consequence of the deadly triangle of weak spleen, thymus
and liver, plus a toxic large intestine and weak pancreas. That organ profile is
found in skin cancer, prostate cancer, leukemia, brain cancer, cancer of what have
you. How fast or how slowly the cells multiply or spread, where they are located,
what the cancer cells look like in a microscope, these are irrelevant factors compared
to the body's ability to conquer the disease. Or die from it.

If the body's immune system can stop the growth of the cancers
and begin to turn them back before the cancer cells impinge catastrophically on some
vital function, the person can usually survive. Even if the body cannot completely
eliminate all the cancer cells, but regains enough immune function to keep the existing
cancers in permanent check, a person can survive many years with an existing, stable
cancer without undue pain or discomfort. Still having a non-growing tumor after a
long fast indicates that a person is a lot better than they were before fasting.

I believe that virtually everyone has cancer cells in their
body, just like viruses and bacteria. But most people do not develop cancer as a
disease because their immune function is strong so these misbehaving cells are destroyed
as fast as they appear. Mutated, freely-multiplying cells are caused by peroxidized
fats, by free radicals in the body, by radiation (there has always been background
radiation on Earth), by chance mutation. There are naturally occurring highly carcinogenic
substances in ordinary foods that are unavoidable. In fact some of these naturally
occurring substances are far more dangerous than the toxic residues of pesticides
in our foods. The body is supposed to deal with all these things; they are all called
insults. It is rarely the insult, but the failure of the body to eliminate cancerous
cells promptly that causes the disease called cancer. So the treatment I recommend
for cancer in general is the same as the one described for breast cancer cases. Restore
the immune function.

However, as much as I lack respect for conventional medical
cancer therapies, I do think surgery can have a useful place in cancer treatment
along with hygienic methods. Some people just cannot confront the lump(s). Or they
are so terrified of having a cancer in their body that their emotions suppresses
their own immune function. Even though surgery prompts a cancer to spread more rapidly,
without their lumps some cancer patients feel more positive. If surgery is done in
conjunction with rebuilding the immune system, the body will prevent new cancers
from forming.

Removal of a large mass of cancer cells can also lighten
the immune system's task. Not having to kill off and reabsorb all those cells one-by-one
from a huge cancer mass, the body can better conquer smaller groups of cancer cells.
And the die-off of large cancers produces a lot of toxins, burdening the organs of
elimination. This is an argument for the potential benefit of a lumpectomy. However,
I do not support mastectomies, or the type of surgery that cause massive damage to
the body in a foolish attempt to remove every last cancer cell, as though the cells
themselves were the disease.

Sometimes cancer tumors are well-encapsulated, walled off
and can be easily removed without prompting metastasis. This type of tumor may not
be completely reabsorbed by the body in any case; though the immune system may have
killed it, an empty shell remains, like a peanut shell. Sometimes the judgment calls
about surgery can get dicey. When surgery involves removing an organ. I oppose the
loss of useful body parts.

I have also known and helped people who believed they couldn't
recover without radiation and chemotherapy. What people believe is, is. The emotions
generated when a personal reality is suppressed, ignored or invalidated will overwhelm
an immune system. I always tell those people who sincerely believe in it to go ahead
with standard medical treatment (while I'm privately praying the doctors won't cause
too much damage). However, when I am supporting a body with supplements and dietary
reform, have put that body on a raw-food cleansing diet or even a raw food diet with
nuts and grains that hardly detoxifies, and then the person has had chemotherapy
and radiation, the medical doctors in attendance are inevitably amazed that the side
effects are much milder than anticipated, or non-existent. And fewer courses of chemotherapy
are needed than the doctors expected.

For example, I worked with a little boy with leukemia. His
mother brought him to me while trying to resolve a conflict with her ex-husband about
the boy's treatment. The father demanded the standard medical route; the mother was
for natural therapy. Eventually the father won in court, but I had the boy on my
program for three months before the doctors got their hands on him. Even during chemotherapy
and radiation the mother kept the boy on my program. Throughout the doctors' treatment
he had so few bad side effects that he was able to continue in school and play with
the other children; he did not lose his hair (which would have made him feel like
a freak). He recovered. I don't mind that the medical doctors took credit, but to
my thinking, he recovered despite their therapy.